Identifying clusters of health risk behaviors and their predictors in adult survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the French Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health risk behaviors (HRB) of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are generally studied separately, despite the evidence suggesting that HRB are not independent. To our knowledge, few studies have examined HRB profiles in the former pediatric cancer patients. In this study, we identified HRB profiles and examined predictors engaging in unhealthy behaviors in CCS. METHODS: We used data from a French cohort of CCS that includes five-year survivors diagnosed between 1945 and 2000 and treated before reaching age 18, in five centers in France. A total of 2961 adult CCS answered a self-reported questionnaire pertaining to HRB. Latent class analysis was used to identify HRB profiles combining physical activity, smoking, cannabis use, and alcohol drinking. Multinomial logistic analyses examined predictors for engaging in unhealthy behaviors. RESULTS: Three HRB patterns emerged: "Low-risk" (n = 1846, 62.3%) included CCS who exhibited the highest frequency for usual physical activity and the lowest probabilities for current smoking or cannabis use, but most drank at least moderately; "Moderate-risk behaviors" (n = 291, 9.8%), and "High-risk behaviors" (n = 824, 27.8%) for CCS who exhibited the highest frequencies for current smoking, cannabis use, and heavy drinking. The multivariable regression revealed that male CCS, less educated or not married were significantly more likely to be in the high-risk behaviors group than the low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: As CCS remain a vulnerable population, screening for HRB should be routinized in long-term follow-up care and interventions targeting multiple HRB simultaneously among survivors should be developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".